Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problem with unreliable data? (don't be so bloody unfriendly)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Problem with unreliable data? (don't be so bloody unfriendly)

    http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...nreliable-data

    Explain to him how T-EST1 and T-MLAT are related. Then update your how-it-works explaining what T-EST1 does.
    And then add T-EST to your FAQ.

    Not everyone went to the university and understands everything.
    If you have a problem make better forum sections. One where advanced aviation can be discussed combined with FR24.
    And one where newbies can ask questions over and over again. Because with so many people using the site, this is normal behavior.

    We _ALL_ love FR24, that's why you get so many feedback.

    Better handling of forum moderation is advised!

  • #2
    How it works is very good updated.

    Flightradar24 combines data from several data sources including ADS-B, MLAT and FAA. The ADS-B, MLAT and FAA data is aggregated together with schedule and flight status data from airlines and airports to create a unique flight tracking experience on www.flightradar24.com and in Flightradar24 apps.

    It's not about being unfriendly but once for all remove the focus from the unreliable radar-code. We don't want to explain any codes, we want people to stop looking at these meaningless radar-codes. FR24 is a mashup of different data sources which is not reflected in the radar-code. So as mentioned several times last week radar code is not reliable, but for internal FR24 use.

    Comment


    • #3
      I was wondering why MLAT data was used (T-MLAT) or estimated position (T-EST?), while there was feed of reliable squitter data from T-LEPA10 (unless there was no feed at the time) - I couldn't ask since the thread was closed.

      Maybe if the user could check their feeders stats - only available to F- feeders and Linux feeders using 2.41 feed software - they would know if they were feeding at the time.
      Last edited by peterhr; 2014-04-16, 07:18. Reason: (removed comment 717 old plane - it's not!)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by peterhr View Post
        I was wondering why MLAT data was used
        The aircraft in question doesn't transmit positional data.

        Comment


        • #5
          Lose the Codes

          Originally posted by Mike View Post
          How it works is very good updated.

          Flightradar24 combines data from several data sources including ADS-B, MLAT and FAA. The ADS-B, MLAT and FAA data is aggregated together with schedule and flight status data from airlines and airports to create a unique flight tracking experience on www.flightradar24.com and in Flightradar24 apps.

          It's not about being unfriendly but once for all remove the focus from the unreliable radar-code. We don't want to explain any codes, we want people to stop looking at these meaningless radar-codes. FR24 is a mashup of different data sources which is not reflected in the radar-code. So as mentioned several times last week radar code is not reliable, but for internal FR24 use.
          If you want to remove the focus from the "Radar Codes" then remove them, otherwise people will continue to ask questions.
          If these codes are as meaningless as you seem to suggest then why on earth display them.

          The fact that people do ask questions show that they do have an interest in the site and want to understand more about how it works.

          AR

          Comment


          • #6
            They will for sure be removed one day, but we need to move slowly. If we remove them now there will be a big storm "Why did you remove the code?!?!". So we first want people to understand that the code is not correct it will be easier to remove it.

            Comment


            • #7
              To remove them is not a solution. we can identify an aircraft via the hexcode, some via other websites and some via visual and radar observation, so we can help to fill and update the database. It's a pity to see the history (hide all mil aircrafts, remove hexcodes at next).
              ;-(

              Comment


              • #8
                There are no plans to remove the hex-code. This discussion is about the radar-code.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok, thanx.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mike View Post
                    They will for sure be removed one day, but we need to move slowly. If we remove them now there will be a big storm "Why did you remove the code?!?!". So we first want people to understand that the code is not correct it will be easier to remove it.
                    I think it could stay but in a different format. Remove the personal radar code (eg. "T-YSWG2") and just replace with "T", "F" but keep "M-LAT#" and "T-EST#". But when the day comes when only FR24 receivers are feeding, replace F and T codes with "ADSB" (or maybe change to "data type").
                    F-YSWG1 and T-YSWG2

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by YSWG View Post
                      I think it could stay but in a different format. Remove the personal radar code (eg. "T-YSWG2") and just replace with "T", "F" but keep "M-LAT#" and "T-EST#". But when the day comes when only FR24 receivers are feeding, replace F and T codes with "ADSB" (or maybe change to "data type").

                      Good plan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Noticed an Air Canada flight this AM.. Aircraft was 'Yellow'..and showed Radar as 'T-FAA1' ? I take it that was also M-LAT..it vanished from the screen shortly after !
                        Jerry
                        F-CYQL1

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Has now 'popped back up' as
                          YWG Winnipeg
                          YVR Vancouver
                          STD 6:10 AM CDT
                          ATD 6:24 AM CDT
                          STA 7:13 AM PDT
                          ETA 7:11 AM PDT

                          Aircraft(E190)
                          Embraer EMB190-100 IGW
                          Registration
                          CFHNX
                          Altitude
                          34,000 ft Vertical Speed
                          0 fpm
                          Speed
                          370 kt Track
                          262
                          Latitude
                          49.8729 Longitude
                          -113.3664
                          Radar
                          T-F5M Squawk
                          N/A

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There will probably always be T- feeders, but they are likely to be up in lower traffic areas between airports.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by VE6CPP View Post
                              Noticed an Air Canada flight this AM.. Aircraft was 'Yellow'..and showed Radar as 'T-FAA1' ? I take it that was also M-LAT..it vanished from the screen shortly after !
                              Jerry
                              F-CYQL1
                              I don't think these "yellow planes" with the T-FAA1 radar code are generated exclusively using MLAT techniques because they have started appearing in fairly large numbers over the Pacific in places where there are either no FR24 feeders or not enough (miniumum 4) to generate MLAT data. I think they are somehow related to the FAA feed (orange) which only shows planes over North America, north Atlantic and north Pacific. I feel that the feeder name,T-FAA1, is not coincidental. However, it is unlikely that we will be told just how it works since the current line from FR24 is that feeder names have no meaning that is significant to users.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X